The Smyrna Clerk from 1859

[TrueMacedonian]

Was this Smyrna clerk a "Servian"? A "Servian born" who called himself a Macedonian and compatriot of Alexander the Great? I am pretty certain he did not mean "Greek", though being a clerk I am positive he needed to learn Romaika and Turkish. He stated in the most point blank manner that he was a Macedonian.
And he was "Servian born". Quite possibly because his family joined the great migration of Macedonians fleeing Macedonia after the Karposh uprising. This is just a guess though. He may have well been born in Belgrade from Macedonian parents who were merchants themselves. What is certain is that we have someone calling themselves a Macedonian, a compatriot of Alexander the Great, in 1859. Let the enemies of Macedonia beat themselves over the head on this one for awhile.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Interesting source TM. Being of Macedonian blood and the clerk's own consciousness means more than where he was born.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Interesting source TM. Being of Macedonian blood and the clerk's own consciousness means more than where he was born.

Agreed SoM. He could've called himself a "Servian" but instead refers to himself as a Macedonian.

[George S.]

Where are our "greek friends"to see this there is no reference to macedonians them being bulgarian,or slav macedonian or skopijans.So much for your bs propaganda designed to take away the macedonian identity ie because you decided there was no macedonians.The TM article proves beyond doubt that macedonians existed in 1859.
According to our greek friends Also TITO was around in 1859
with his so he could create this macedonian!!.

[Daskalot]

Not to be a party pooper or the like but the book is written in 1860

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Daskalot

Not to be a party pooper or the like but the book is written in 1860

This is the first sentence of the preface from the book:

I went to Constantinople in the early autumn of 1859 to see for myself in what state of health the Sick Man was.

[Carlin]

Real history is interesting also when it deconstructs the pap we learned in school or from the media, when it demonstrates how we have been misled. More exciting than learning history is unlearning the disinformational history we have been taught. Real history goes the extra step and challenges existing icons, offering interpretations that have a healthy subverting effect on mainstream ideology.

Attempts at real history are dismissed by conservatives as "revisionism." To use "revisionism" as an epithet is to say that there is no room for historical reinterpretation, that the standard version is objective and factual, and that any departure from it can only be ideological and faddish.

- Michael Parenti

[Epirot]

Nice quote, Carlin

However I've some quibbles here. Not always the attempts to change the long established interpretations are correct. In some cases, that radical change is undertaken by some ''scholars'' who are not entitled in doing professionally that. I rather think some of them endeavor against everything perceived indiscriminately as being 'old'', ''conservative'' or ''traditionalist''. This can be seen especially in Balkans. Almost in every country there is a rise of ''de-constructionists'', mostly not motivated by scholarly goals. I've seen blatant examples of some of them lacking of any historical knowledge. Yet they attempt so hard to have their take on history in spite of fact they offer nothing of substance. Their ''professional'' credentials are best attested by the fact that their books are sponsorized by ''Soros''. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not principally against new interpretations if substantial knowledge has come to light. I prefer to maintain a moderate scepticism in regard with ''old concepts''.

[Carlin]

Originally Posted by Epirot

Nice quote, Carlin

However I've some quibbles here. Not always the attempts to change the long established interpretations are correct. In some cases, that radical change is undertaken by some ''scholars'' who are not entitled in doing professionally that. I rather think some of them endeavor against everything perceived indiscriminately as being 'old'', ''conservative'' or ''traditionalist''. This can be seen especially in Balkans. Almost in every country there is a rise of ''de-constructionists'', mostly not motivated by scholarly goals. I've seen blatant examples of some of them lacking of any historical knowledge. Yet they attempt so hard to have their take on history in spite of fact they offer nothing of substance. Their ''professional'' credentials are best attested by the fact that their books are sponsorized by ''Soros''. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not principally against new interpretations if substantial knowledge has come to light. I prefer to maintain a moderate scepticism in regard with ''old concepts''.

Good points all.

I would describe myself as a sceptic for the following topics: ethnic, national, and religious identities and traditions. I consider ethnic/national/religious identities and beliefs social constructs, period.

In the Balkan nation-states, the process of construction of national identities remains largely undiscussed as well as concealed from view.

What TM provided here, with one single source from 1859, shatters the basis of modern Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian nationalist discourse with respect to Macedonian identity and history.

[TrueMacedonian]

Bump. This was pretty interesting and still is.